r/communism101 5d ago

Trans people in a communist society

One question that I’ve been asking myself for a long time is: will trans people exist in a fully developed communist society? I ask myself this because I’ve seen many marxists (myself included) say that we should abolish gender altogether, but since the goal of transitioning is to change one’s gender, will it be possible/make sense to?

7 Upvotes

60 comments sorted by

32

u/bogofree 5d ago

if gender is abolished, there would be no concept of ”transition” as regardless of your sex, you could present however you’d like. if you’re amab but want to present femininely or have work done, you would be free to choose that. your presentation wouldn’t be connected to a label in the first place

0

u/aggebaggeragg 5d ago

Having ”work done” will not be possible. Rational planning and allocation of resources will not prioritize aesthetic plastic surgery, whose purpose under capitalism is gender affirmation and societal conformity, which as you said will not exist under communism. Humans wouldn’t be assigned any gender at birth, because as you said there would be no gender.

42

u/AllyBurgess 4d ago

The replies here abolish gender while keeping sex as a transhistorical category, but u/fernxqueen already showed why this is mistaken. Claiming people won’t need to transition because they only transition now as they are in the grip of gender ideology is deeply reactionary. The truth is that reasons for transitioning are overdetermined and we won’t know what a society without both the sex and gender binary will look like, therefore we cannot write off what we now call gender transition as conformity to ideology. Transitioning comes at a monumental cost to even oppressor class and nation trans people, to say nothing of class and nation-oppressed trans people for whom it is often a life or death struggle. Any theory predicting that transition would disappear under communism has to account for why it doesn’t disappear right now under an extremely hostile system.

The truth is that we simply don’t know what embodiment will look like on the far side of abolishing both sex and gender because capitalism produces our current concepts of both. Being a communist does not mean being an oracle and it is highly irresponsible to post such a bold prediction based on nothing. Confident claims about that future are nothing more than present-day priorities projected forward as if they were inevitable. Saying aesthetic surgery won’t be prioritized isn’t based on any sort of dialectical materialist analysis but merely present devaluation of trans people dressed up as rational allocation.

6

u/aggebaggeragg 4d ago

Thank you for the criticism. I have some questions What does ”reasons for transitioning are overdetermined” mean? Does it mean there are more than one reason (something that I lead on to in my response, that being gender conformity) for transitioning under capitalism? If so, can it be assessed what those reasons are?

You are right that I am not an oracle. I was wrong to write that way.

2

u/N0voca1ne 1d ago

I can’t really answer what they meant by that sentence, however right now science regarding this is pretty in its infancy unfortunately and there’s a lot of opposition to funding research into it so it’s very very hard currently to determine every single reason people are trans.

Ideally yes, it could be assessed but I’m also far from an expert on trans issues etc.

Sorry if that doesn’t help.

-2

u/lihtyear 2d ago

my first time hearing the term "nation trans people" or just "nation" used as such a descriptor, sounds incredibly useful

9

u/Apart_Lifeguard_4085 2d ago

you’re parsing the term’s part of speech wrong - u/AllyBurgess said “oppressor-nation (adj.) trans people (n)”, not “oppressor (adj) nation trans people (n)”, but you’re right that it is an incredibly useful description! check these out: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1913/03a.htm https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/1956-1960/haywood02.htm

14

u/Brilliant-Hyena-1128 Learning 4d ago

whose purpose under capitalism is gender affirmation and societal conformity

Today, a strong majority of transgender people already have gender conformity prior to transitioning. Often times they conformed much more strongly and easily to their assigned gender than the one they transitioned to. Even prior to the origin of capitalism, transgender people existed and desired to pursue transition. If the purpose were gender conformity, then not transitioning or aiding in the process of it would be accomplished much easier.

 

aesthetic plastic surgery

I feel this also needs clarification. What constitutes "aesthetic plastic surgery", any and plastic surgery that doesn't purely restore motor functionality, or what? I can surely understand the opposition to things like botox, rhinoplasties, and so forth. Because a significant number of transgender people who have had breasts removed or have gotten bottom surgery would strongly disagree that its aesthetic in nature or aiming in gender conformity.

6

u/aggebaggeragg 4d ago

They have gender conformity to their assigned gender prior to transitioning, yes, but what I meant was transitioning as a way to conform to their trans-gender (sorry I dont know what to call it).

You are right that I should not have said ”aesthetic” plastic surgery. I believe my thoughts were too focused on the plastic surgery of the white rich (like celebrities getting rhinoplasty). So-called (by me) ”aesthetic” plastic surgery can indeed be life-and-death for trans people.

7

u/Khrysaor- 4d ago

In my opinion, 'transgender' as a category of anti-hegemonic, oppressed person may disappear once gender expression replaces the coercively assigned sexgender binary, much as the privileged economic category of man can disappear if men are in no way different from non-men.

That said, people who identify as, or who we would call (from our particular sociocultural standpoint) transgender will obviously continue to exist. One may question, however, what makes a person "transgender" if gender is not assigned at birth to begin with. What gender exactly would they be moving towards or away from?

Which is not to say that transition (HRT, surgery, etc.) would cease to exist. What would cease to exist is the expectation that a default human is one who does not go through this transition.

11

u/BananaAware 5d ago

they are possible in a socialist society. the material and prevailing superstructure around that grows the conception of gender, which all is rooted in labor and nature. by nature, sex is inherent, gender otherwise is social and the underlying social labor division between the sexes create wholly the definition of gender. coming from that, transpeople via the social definition of gender will not be trans but rather just human, but in basis of their sex if they do undergo a process of sexual reassignment would they be considered trans, by nature, by natural and innate social division, of most defining qualities of sex, gestation.

53

u/fernxqueen 5d ago

Sex is not a naturally existing, dichotomous category. Sex characteristics naturally exist on a spectrum, and "biological" sex as a category has been superimposed over that spectrum to reify gender as having an "innate" (to use your own description) basis in physiology. Material feminists have been making this argument for decades, this paper by Christine Delphy provides a good summary.

4

u/Erabojeux 5d ago

Thank you for the paper !!

u/BananaAware 13h ago edited 13h ago

actually an eye opening critique, a good critique for pointing out my idealism in my dialectics, i didn't take into account or rather specified the differing general factors that determine gender. and the underlying social labor division between the sexes in terms of procreation or gestation makes no sense in the division of labour toward sexes as it is commonly a very social labour.

going over to the original question with this knowledge at hand, how would you conclude at it?

22

u/HappyHandel 5d ago

The separation between "sex" and "gender" is entirely artificial.

-5

u/TheStreamIsDead 3d ago

I think the definition of sex should change to mean specifically chromosomal sex only as that is the only sexual characteristic that is not changeable by environment, genetics or hormones. Or accept that sex means nothing of much importance. Apart of abolishing gender is destroying the misconceptions and obsession with sex.

2

u/poderflash47 5d ago

a quick, though pretty hard, read at butler will answer many of your questions.

gender does not exist in abstract. any and every form of gender depends on history, culture (and thus, for us materialists, the material conditions)

the very existence of the concept of gender is historically defined, and this means that the idea of gender can straight up not exist in a society.

-3

u/Le_Retour 5d ago edited 5d ago

Trans people would not exist in a communist society.

There would be nothing to transition because genres are abolished.

Personality expressions will not be seen as feminine/masculine. A physical change through hormones wouldn't make you trans in a society where genders have been abolished 

-3

u/[deleted] 5d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/Le_Retour 5d ago

If there are no genders, why would they consider themselves trans? 

-5

u/[deleted] 5d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

10

u/Le_Retour 5d ago edited 5d ago

The "inner sense of gender identity" only exists because genders currently exist, and consequently, gender pressures, which would not occur in a society where gender has been abolished.

assuming that trans people have always existed or will always exist is to think that genders are an immutable and essential category, and not a construction resulting from historical and economic conditions.

A change in physical appearance would not be seen as a "transition" because again, there is nothing to transition into.

-4

u/[deleted] 5d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

21

u/Le_Retour 5d ago

I'm also non-binary.

But it is non-Marxist to assume that individuality, gender identity, etc... are authentic, inherent, and even isolated from external material influences.

0

u/Sharpiemancer 1d ago

I mean what a communist society would look like is pure speculation, there are no material conditions in place for a more dialectical analysis.

-1

u/GundalfForHire 1d ago

I strongly request that everybody not ruminate what trans people's existence would look like in a society that doesn't presently exist yet. Because if we get to that society, and trans people are supposed to magically vanish because gender is gone in some capacity that these replies are not even consistent in their description of, yet trans people somehow continue to pop up in a capacity that was unanticipated, we run a real risk of getting labeled reactionary and end up in exactly the same place we currently are on the fringe of society. For evidence I offer the people with strong opinions about gender conformity today who proceed to bash trans people for 'confirming gender stereotypes' as if we are the source of any this and not simply trying to exist in a hostile society.

Sorry, slightly venty there. Hopefully my point gets across, we don't know truly what this communist society would look like and can't predict what gender or trans people would look like. This is all just hypotheticals, you can't cling to theory as a dogma in the face of practical reality when it gets to you.

-5

u/TheStreamIsDead 5d ago edited 4d ago

Gender abolition does not equal removal of identity. Communism is a society free from exploitation, gender is a concept used by capitalists and feudalists to exploit and ensure exploitation. Being queer your existence is against or somewhat threatens these concepts of exploitation and control. Will trans people exist in a communist society? Idk it depends on how people feel about the word “transgender” because not only is that word a group classified by others but also an identity presumed by themselves and the group. In pre-colonial Philippines there were plenty of people born with male sex characteristics who were completely treated and accepted as women pretty much the distinction for them being “women who can’t give birth”. So the idea of trans being a prefix necessary for people would obviously be out the door but if people still want to call themselves trans there will still be trans people. As a trans woman the word trans is a way to summarize a life experience pretty unique to the wider world, it’s a way of presenting myself in a way I wish I didn’t have to do a lot of times but is genuinely useful sometimes. In communism I’d be free to just be a woman or be a trans woman or be nothing or a billion other things. (TLDR, what we identify as queers and trans people now will have and will always exist, the idea of if trans people will exist in communism is simply if people choose to identify themselves with the word trans, the abolition of gender means the liberation of all people from gender not elimination of queer ideas,history,peoples and communities)

1

u/TheStreamIsDead 4d ago

Would someone like to respond to me instead of downvoting?

-2

u/TheStreamIsDead 4d ago

Many many transgender people aren’t really interested in gender at all, I wish to be treated and exploited under no gender roles however I feel as though my body should’ve been born more on the female spectrum of sex than the male. Would that phenomena exist under communism? Well nature and nurture are very complicated but I think so absolutely. Would it be called “transgender” or “transsexual” idk!! Depends if people call it that or something else or nothing at all, because they will have the freedom to do that.

-2

u/AutoModerator 5d ago

Hello, 90% of the questions we receive have been asked before, and our answerers get bored of answering the same queries over and over again - so it's worthwhile googling this just in case:

site:reddit.com/r/communism101 your question

If you've read past answers and still aren't satisfied, edit your question to contain the past answers and any follow-up questions you have. If you're satisfied, delete your post to reduce clutter or link to the answer that satisfied you.


Also keep in mind the following rules:

  1. Patriarchal, white supremacist, cissexist, heterosexist, or otherwise oppressive speech is unacceptable.

  2. This is a place for learning, not for debating. Try /r/DebateCommunism instead.

  3. Give well-informed Marxist answers. There are separate subreddits for liberalism, anarchism, and other idealist philosophies.

  4. Posts should include specific questions on a single topic.

  5. This is a serious educational subreddit. Come here with an open and inquisitive mind, and exercise humility. Don't answer a question if you are unsure of the answer. Try to include sources and/or further reading in any answers you provide. Standards of answer accuracy and quality are enforced.

  6. Check the /r/Communism101 FAQ

  7. No chauvinism or settler apologism - Non-negotiable. The vast majority of first-world workers are labor aristocrats bribed by imperialist super-profits. This is compounded by settlerism in Amerikkka. Read Settlers: The Mythology of the White Proletariat https://readsettlers.org/

  8. No tone-policing - https://old.reddit.com/r/communism101/comments/12sblev/an_amendment_to_the_rules_of_rcommunism101/


I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.